Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Continued the debate

Duniam argued that the bill was necessary to address national security risks posed by individuals returning from declared areas. Duniam contended that the government’s refusal to support the legislation contradicted its stated position against repatriation. Duniam highlighted concerns about third parties facilitating returns and questioned the government’s handling of passport issuance for these individuals. Duniam also raised issues regarding visas granted to speakers with histories of spreading hate speech, suggesting a broader pattern of lax border security.

Government response

Watt stated that the government did not support the bill, describing it as poorly drafted and likely to cause unintended consequences. Watt argued that the legislation was overly broad, potentially criminalising innocent groups such as aid workers and clergy. Watt maintained that the bill failed to address the core issue of repatriation, reiterating the government’s longstanding policy of not assisting or repatriating individuals from Syria. Watt urged the Senate to oppose the bill, asserting that national security should be managed through existing laws and agency advice rather than political stunts.